Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/letterofsenatord01doug 


f 7 7,  1 

~2- 9 5 G 

It  / 

/ ' * 


; ' ' 

' v' ^ 


"2-- 


LETTER 


OF 


VINDICATING 


HIS  CHARACTER  AND  HIS  POSITION  ON  THE  NEBRASKA 
BILL  AGAINST  THE  ASSAULTS  CONTAINED  IN 
THE  PROCEEDINGS  OF 


COMPOSED  OF 

TWENTY-FIVE  CLERGYMEN  OF  CHICAGO. 


WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED  AT  THE  SENTINEL  OFFICE. 

i 854. 


LETTER 


OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS. 


Washington,  April  6,  1854. 

Reverend  Gentlemen:  I acknowledge  your 
kind  consideration,  in  sending  me  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  public  meeting  composed  of  twenty- 
five  clergymen  of  the  city  of  Chicago  opposed 
to  the  Nebraska  bill.  These  proceedings  con- 
sist of  a protest  “in  the  name  of  Almighty 
God”  against  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
and  signed  by  yourselves  “ as  citizens  and  as 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ;”  and 
also  of  four  resolutions,  which  are  stated  to 
have  been  adopted  with  but  one  dissenting 
voice.  The  last  of  these  resolutions  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

“4th.  That  in  the  debate  recently  held  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  upon  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  memorial  of  the  clergy  of  New  Eng- 
land, we  greatly  deplore  the  apparent  want  of 
courtesy  and  reverence  towards  man  and  God, 
manifest  especially  in  the  speeches  of  the  sena- 
tors from  Illinois  and  Indiana ; and  that  we  regard 
the  whole  tone  and  spirit  of  that  debate,  on  the 
part  of  the  opponents  of  said  memorial,  as  an 
outrage  upon  the  privileges  of  a large  and  respec- 
table body  of  citizens,  upon  the  dignity  of  the 
Senate,  and  upon  the  claims  of  the  divine  name, 
word,  and  institutions,  to  which  we  owe  pro- 
foundest  honor  and  reverence.” 

Here  I am  distinctly  and  “especially”  charged 
with  “ the  apparent  want  of  courtesy  and  rev- 
erence towards  man  and  God,”  in  the  perform- 
ance of  my  public  duties  in  the  Senate.  This 
is  a grave  charge,  whether  preferred  against  a 
private  individual  or  a public  man,  and  one 
which  should  not  have  been  made  recklessly 


and  without  sufficient  authority.  If  unsup- 
ported by  evidence  and  contradicted  by  the  re- 
cords, its  enormity  is  greatly  aggravated  by  the 
startling  fact  that  it  emanates  from  “ministers 
of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,”  professing  to 
speak  “in  the  name  of  Almighty  God,”  and 
by  his  authority.  When  you  shall  read,  that 
debate  carefully,  you  will  be  surprised  at  the 
injustice  you  have  done  me  by  attributing  to 
me  the  language  which  I found  it  necessary 
to  quote,  for  the  purpose  of  comment,  from  the 
protest  signed  by  the  three  thousand  and  fifty 
clergymen  of  New  England.  I agree  that  the 
language  quoted  was  “wanting  in  courtesy  and 
reverence  to  man  and  God,”  and  it  was  for 
that  reason  that  I called  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  and  the  country  to  the  astounding  fact 
that  any  body  of  men,  calling  themselves  cler- 
gymen, or  by  any  other’  name,  in  this  age  and 
in  this  country,  would  presume  to  claim  that 
they  were  authorized  by  the  Almighty,  and  in 
his  name,  to  pronounce  an  authoritative  judg- 
ment upon  a political  question  pending  before 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  If  you  had 
attribated  this  language  to  its  true  authors 
and  directed  your  censure  against  them,  in- 
stead of  me,  ■who  but  quoted  to  expose  it,  I 
should  have  united  with  you  in  saying  that  it 
did  manifest  an  “apparent  want  of  courtesy” 
to  the  Senate  and  “reverence  to  God.” 

In  the  latter  clause  of  the  same  resolution, 
you  also  say : 

“ That  we  regard  the  whole  tone  and  spirit  of 
that  debate  on  the  part  of  the  opponents  of  said 


307892 


4 


meiriorial,  as  an  outrage  upon  the  privileges  of  a 
large  and  respectable  body  of  citizens,”  &c. 

And  in  the  third  resolution,  you  say  : 


j ator  from  Massachusetts  has  said,  as  to  there  be- 
I ing,  perhaps,  no  body  of  men  in  this  country,  three 
thousand  in  number,  who  combine  more  respect- 
ability than  these  clergymen.” 


“ That,  in  our  ollice  as  ministers,  we  have  lost 
none  of  our  prerogatives-,  nor  escaped  our  respon- 
sibibties  as  citizens,”  &e. 

It  is  your  obvious  intention  in  these  two  res- 
olutions to  convey  the  impression  to  the  world 
and  induce  the  public  to  believe  that  I,  and 
those  senators  who  participated  with  me  in  the 
debate  referred  to,  denied  to  the  signers  of  that 
protest  their  right  “as  citizens,”  in  consequence 
of  their  profession  as  “ clergymen.” 

Unwilling  as  I am  to  believe  that  you,  as  the 
professed  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  assembled 
in  His  holy  name,  could  deliberately  put  forth  a 
charge  so  unjust  and  unfounded,  yet  I am  una- 
ble to  put  any  other  construction  upon  your 
language,  or  to  conceive  of  any  other  object 
you  could  have  had  in  passing  these  resolutions. 

In  vindication  of  my  own  character  against 
the  aspersions  which  you  have  so  unjustly  cast 
upon  it,  you  must  permit  me  to  say  to  you,  with 
the  most  profound  respect  for  your  “ office  as 
ministers’,”  that,  if  you  bad  read  the  debate 
yourselves  before  you  pronounced  judgment 
upon  it,  instead  of  following  the  lead  of  an  un- 
scrupulous partisan  press,  you  would  have  known 
that  the  charge  in  any  of  its  forms,  and  in  all  its 
length  and  breadth,  was  wickedly  and  wanton- 
ly untrue.  So  far  from  denying  to  the  clergy 
of  New  England,  or  of  any  other  portion  of 
this  country,  any  of  their  rights  “ as  citizens,” 
and  so  far  from  questioning  their  undoubted 
right  to  petition,  protest,  or  remonstrate,  in  re- 
spect, to  any  measure  coming  or  pending  before 
Congress  in  the  same  manner,  and  by  the  same 
authority  as  other  citizens  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  debate  shows  that  each  and  every 
senator  against  whom,  you  have  preferred  this 
grave  charge  distinctly  and  expressly  recog- 
nised and  affirmed  such  right.  In  order  to 
render  my  vindication  .complete,  and  to  disa- 
buse you  of  the  error  into  which  you  have  fal- 
len— for,  in  your  case,  it  must  be  error  merely — 
I proceed  to  establish  this  position  by  extracts 
from  the  debate,  as  it  appears  in  the  Congress- 
ional Globe , and  republished  in  pamphlet  form, 
at  .he  abolition  establishment  in  this  city.  At 
page  11  of  that  pamphlet,  you  will  find  that 
Mr.  Douglas  said  : 

“ The  senator  from  Texas  says  the  people  have 
a right  to  petition.  I do  not  question  it.  T do  not 
wish  to  deprive  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  that  right. 
I do  not  acknowledge  that  there  is  any  member 
of  this  body  who  has  a higher  respect  and  vener- 
ation either  for  a minister  of  the  Gospel  or  for  his 
holy  calling  than  I have ; but  my  respect  is  for  him 
in  his  culling.  I will  not  controvert  what  the  sen- 


Permit  me  to  inquire  of  you,  reverend  gen- 
tlemen, whether  you  had  read  my  speech,  and 
particularly  this  portion  of  it,  when  you  charged 
me  with  committing,  in  that  debate,  “an  out- 
rage upon  the  privileges  of  a large  and  respect- 
able body  of  citizens,”  (referring  to  the  clergy- 
men who  had  signed  that  protest,)  and  when, 
in  another  resolution,  you  charged  me  and 
others,  by  implication,  with  the  design  of  de- 
I priving  you  of  your  “prerogatives  as  citizens,” 
on  account  of  your  “office  as  ministers!” 

I now  call  on  you,  “as  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ,”  “as  citizens,”  and  as  hon- 
est men,  who  are  under  a high  moral  and  reli- 
gious obligation  to  speak  the  truth  and  to  do 
justice  to  all  men,  to  withdraw  this  charge,  and 
make  an  open  aud  public  confession  of  the  in- 
justice  you  have  done  me! 

Again,  in  your  resolutions,  you  do  not  con- 
fine your  censure  to  myself,  but  you  extend  it 
to  Senators  Mason,  Butler,  Pettit,  Adams,  and 
Badger,  including  all  who  participated  in  that 
debate  in  opposition  to  the  propriety  of  the 
protest.  Your  language  is,  that  you  regard 
“the  whole  tone  and  spirit  of  that  debate,  on 
the  part  of  the  opponents  of  said  memorial,  as 
an  outrage  upon  the  privileges  of  d large  and 
respectable  body  of  citizens,”  &c. 

Now,  let  us  see  whether  your  charge  against 
Mr.  Mason,  that  he  committed  an  “outrage” 
on  the  rights  of  the  memorialists  “as  citizens,” 
be  sustained  by  the  record: 

II  Mr.  Mason.  That  it  is  the  right  of  the  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  to  petition  Congress,  or 
either  House  of  it,  upon  any  subject  that  may  be 
presented  to  them,  is  never  denied,  never  should 
be  denied  ; and  such  petition,  upon  any  subject  of 
public,  interest  should  be  received  and  treated 
with  the  respect  which  is  due  to  citizens,  I trust  I 
shall  never  see  the  day  when  the  Senate  of  the 

1 United  States  will  treat  the  authors  of  such  pe- 
titions, upon  any  subject  proper  for  legislation 
! pending  before  the  body,  coming  from  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  with  aught  but  respect.” 


Thus  it  will  be  seeu  that  Mr.  Mason  express- 
ly affirmed  the  right  of  every  citizen,  whatever 
his  profession  or  occupation  in  life,  to  petition 
j Congress  upon  any  subject  pending  before  either 
house.  In  another  portion  of  his  speech  in 
favor  of  tl.  . glit  of  every  class  of  our  citizens 
j to  petition,  he  said  : 


“It  is  arespeetdueto  them;  but  when  they  come 
here,  not  as  citizens,  but  declaring  that  they  come 
as  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and,  as  ihe  honorable 
| Senator  from  Texas  declared  them  to  be,  vicege- 
rents of  the  Almighty — so  I understood  hint  to 
declare,  possibly  he  meant  vice-regents,  to  super- 


5 


vise  and  control  the  legislation  of  the  country — I 
say,  when  they  come  here  as  a class  unknown  to 
the  government,  a class  that  the  government  does 
not  mean  to  know  in  any  form  or  shape,  not  to 
recommend  or  remonstrate,  but  to  denounce  our 
action  as  a great  moral  wrong,  because  they  claim 
to  be  the  “viceregents”  of  the  Almighty,  we  are 
bound,  not  from  disrespect  to  them  as  citizens, 
not  from  disrespect  to  the  cloth  which  they  do  not 
grace,  but  from  respect  to  the  government,  from 
respect  to  that  sacred  public  trust  which  has  been 
committed  to  us — to  carry  out  the  policy  of  the 
government  and  refuse  to  recognise  them.” 

Mr.  Mason  expressly  recognised  and  vindi- 
cated the  full  and  equal  rights  of  clergy- 
men, in  common  with  all  other  citizens,  to  pe  - 
tition government  for  the  redress  of  grievances. 
His  complaint  was,  that  the  protestants  have 
r.ot  approached  the  Senate  in  their  capacity  as 
citizens  ; that  they  did  not  claim  the  right  un- 
der the  Constitution,  or  as  being  derived  from 
any  human  authority  c r earthly  tribunal : but, 
•casting  aside  all  hum  a authority  and  consti- 
tutional right,  they  claim  the  c!i  ine  prerogative 
as  the  ‘‘vice-regents”  of  the  Almighty  on  earth 
to  pronounce  judgment  in  his  name,  and  by  his 
authority,  upon  a legislative  question,  'hich 
had  been  confided  by  the  people,  in  obedience 
to  the  Constitution,  to  the  decision  of  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Butler’s  speech  comes  next.  Let  us 
see  if  your  charge  be  well  founded  against 
him: 

“ Mr.  Bittlep..  I have  great  respect,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. for  the  pulpit.  I have  such  a respect  for  it 
that  I would  almost  submit  to  a rebuke  from  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  even  in  my  official  capacity: 
but  they  lose  a portion  of  my  respect  when  I see 
an  organization,  for,  I believe,  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  this  government,  of  clergymen  within  a 
local  precinct,  within  the  limits  of  New  England, 
assuming  to  be,  as  the  Senator  from  Texas  said, 
the  vicegerents  of  Heaven,  coming  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  Slates,  not  as  citizens,  as  my  friend 
from  Virginia  has  said,  but  as  the  organs  of  God;  for  | 
they  do  not  come  here  petitioning  or  presenting 
their  views  under  the  sanction  of  the  obligations 
and  responsibilities  of  citizens  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  but  they  have  dared 
to  quit  the  pulpit,  and  step  into  the  political  arena, 
and  speak  as  the  organs  of  Almighty  God.  Sir, 
they  assume  to  be  the  foremen  of  the  jury  which 
is  to  pronounce  the  verdict  and  judgment  of  God 
upon  earth.  They  do  not  protest  as  ordinary  citi- 
zens do  ; but  they  mingle  in  their  protest  what 
they  would  have  us  believe  is  the  judgment  of  the 
Almighty.  When  l he  clergy  quit  the  province  which 
is  assigned  to  them,  in  which  they  can  dispense 
the  gosp<  — that  gospel  which  is  represented  as 
the  lamb.  101  as  the  tiger  or  the  lion — when  they 
would  convert  the  lamb  into  the  lion,  going  about 
in  the  form  of  agitaiors,  seeking  whom  they  may 
devour,  instead  of  meek  and  lowly  representatives 


of  Christ,  they  divest  themselves  of  all  respect 
which  I can  give  them.” 

Here  again  you  find  that  there  was  no  dis- 
position to  deprive  ministers  of  the  gospel  of 
1 any  of  their  rights  as  citizens — no  unwilling- 
ness to  receive  their  petitions,  memorials,  or 
remonstrances,  and  to  treat  them  with  entire 
respect  when  presented  in  that  capacity,  and 
claiming  no  other  or  higher  prerogatives  than 
those  secured  to  their  fellow-citizens  by  the 
Constitution.  But  their  divine  right,  emanating 
from  a power  higher  than  the  Constitution, 
and  above  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  and  of 
the  States  of  this  Union,  to  decide  a legisla- 
tive measure,  and  issue  command  to  the  Senate 
in  the  name  of  the  Deity,  wa3  seriously  but  re- 
spectfully called  in  question. 

The  speech  of  Senator  Adams  comes  next  in 
order.  Let  us  see  if  your  charge  against  him 
be  sustained  by  the  record.  Did  he  commit 
“an  outrage  upon  the  privileges  of  a large  and 
respect  able  body  of  citizens  ?”  Did  he  propose 
to  deprive  you  or  any  other  body  of  clergymen 
of  your  “prerogatives  as  citizens?” 

Mr.  Adams  said : 

“I  concur  with  my  friend  from  South  Carolina 
in  regard  to  the  petition  which  ha-  been  presented 
and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table.  It  is  addressed  to 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  by  a 
body  of  individuals  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  I 
trust  I have  as  high  a regard  for  their  vocation  as 
any  other  individual,  and  as  much  respect  for  the 
ministers  of  peace  and  good  will  on  earth  as  any 
other  individual : but  when  they  depart  from  their 
high  vocation,  and  come  down  to  mingle  in  the 
turbid  pools  of  politics,  I would  treat  them  just  as 
I would  all  other  citizens.  I would  treat  their 
memorials  and  remonstrances  precisely  as  I would 
those  of  other  citizens.  It  is  so  unlike  the  apos- 
tles and  the  ministers  of  Christ  at  an  early  day, 
that  it  loses  the  potency  which  they  suppose  the 
styling  themselves  ministers  of  the  Gospel  would 
give  to  their  memorials.  The  early  ministers  of 
Christ  attended  to  their  mission,  one  which  was 
given  to  them  by  their  Master  ; and  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, even  when  the  Saviour  himself  was 
upon  earth,  and  attempts  were  made  to  induce 
him  to  give  opinions  with  reference  to  the  muni- 
cipal affairs  of  the. government,  be  refused-  These 
men  have  descended  from  their  high  estate  to 
assail  the  action  of  this  body.” 

Where  is  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  your 
charge  against  Senator  Adams,  that  he  medi- 
tated the  design  of  depriving  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  of  their  rights  of  citizenship?  Do  you 
find  it  in  the  passage  in  which  he  declares  that 
“ I wouldtreattheir  memorials  and  remonstrances 
precisely  as  I would  those  of  other  citizens  ?” 
Is  it  “ an  outrage  upon  their  privileges  ” that 
they  should  be  treated  precisely  like  other  citi- 
zens ? If  you  think  so,  you  will  do  , Mess  per- 
severe in  the  course  which  you  have  com- 


A m 

y / 


6 


menced.  It’  you  think  otherwise,  you  will 
hasten  to  withdraw  the  unjust  imputations  and 
repair  the  injury  you  have  done. 

Following  the  order  of  the  debate,  the  next 
senator  whom  you  have  embraced  in  your 
charge  of  an  outrage  upon  the  privileges  of  the 
clergy,  is  Mr.  Pettit.  The  first  paragraph  of 
his  speech  on  that  occasion  is  in  the  following 
words  : 

‘■Mr.  Pettit.  Mr.  President,  I am  for  the 
greatest  liberty  to  the  greatest  number,  and  I will 
not  deny  to  any  class  of  my  fellow  citizens,  under 
whatever  name  or  denomination  they  may  appear, 
the  right  to  petition  ; and  under  the  general  term 
of ‘petition,’  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  lam 
willing  to  regard  memorials  and  remonstrances,  of 
whatever  name,  kind,  or  description,  provided  al- 
ways they  are  respectful  to  the  Senate.” 

In  this  speech  you  find  no  attempt  to  deprive 
the  clergy  of  the  rights  of  citizenship ; no  denial 
or  limitation  of  their  privileges  as  citizens. 
Their  right  to  petition,  memorialize,  or  remon- 
strate, “ under  whatever  name  or  denomina- 
tion,” is  conceded  and  affirmed  in  so  many 
words.  It  is  true,  Mr.  Pettit  spoke  in  very 
strong  and  decided  terms  upon  the  assumption 
of  the  reverend  protesters  to  make  known  the 
mind  and  will  of  G od  concerning  the  Nebraska 
bill.  He  denied  what  they  undertook  to  pro- 
claim as  a revelation  by  His  authority,  either 
prophetically  of  events  to  happen  or  judicially 
of  judgments  to  be  inflicted.  But  he  spoke  no 
word,  he  made  no  suggestion,  against  their  full 
and  uncontested  rights,  in  their  own  names,  as 
men  and  ministers,  to  remonstrate,  to  protest, 
and  in  the  strongest  terms,  if  respectful  to  the 
Senate,  to  declare  their  opinions  of  the  nature 
and  tendency  of  the  legislation  of  which  they 
disapproved.  The  only  remaining  speech,  to 
which  your  censure  can  be  supposed  to  apply, 
is  that  of  Senator  Badgek.  He  said: 

“These  gentlemen  clo  not  come  here  in  the 
character  of  petitioners.  These  gentlemen  do  not 
come  here  in  the  character  of  remonstrants ; they 
do  not  come  here  in  the  character  of  memorialists; 
but  they  come  as  protesters,  not  in  their  own 
name,  not  with  the  individual  weight  and  autho- 
rity which  might  be  attributed  to  their  protest  on 
the  ground  of  their  own  intelligence  or  worth,  not 
merely  with  the  weight  and  authority  which  might 
be  superadded  to  this  and  other  considerations 
from  the  fact  of  their  being  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel. It  is  impossible  to  look  at  this  paper  without 
seeing  that  the  honorable  senator  from  New  York 
has  specially  pleaded  upon  the  subject,  and  that 
the  reverend  gentlemen  W'ho  signed  it  will  not 
thank  him  for  assigning  them  in  this  paper  the 
low  position  in  which  he  wishes  to  place  them.  I 
"VVhat  is  it  ? 

“ ‘The  undersigned  clergymen  of  different  reli-  [ 
gious  denominations  in  New  England,  hereby,  in 
the  name  of  Almighty  God,  solemnly  protest.’ 


‘“In  their  official  characters  as  ministers  of  Al- 
mighty God,  and  in  his  name,  they  protest  against 
the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill.' 

“Now,  sir,  these  are  educated  gentlemen.  They 
are  men  of  experience  in  their  vocation.  They 
! understand  the  true  and  solemn  import  of  the 
i words  here  used;  and  I have  not  the  shadow  of 
, a doubt  that  they  meant  to  enter  a protest,  as 
the  language  imports,  as  a protest,  through  them, 
of  the  Almighty  God  himself,  speaking  to  this 
Senate.” 

In  another  portion  of  the  same  speech,  he 
added : 

“ Well,  then,  sir,  the  whole  paper  proceeds  m. 
the  same  name  and  by  the  same  authority  ; and, 
among  other  things,  they  protest  against  the  mea- 
sure as  a great  moral  'wrong,  a breach  of  faith 
eminently  injurious  to  the  moral  principles  of  the 
community,  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  na- 
tional engagements,  and  as  exposing  us  to  the 
righteous  judgment  of  the  Almighty.  All  that  is 
announced  by  these  gentlemen,  as  ministers  of 
God,  affecting  to  speak  in  his  name. 

“ The  interpretation  of  the  paper,  sir.  I think  it 
is  impossible  to  mistake  ; but  I have  said  that  I 
think  too  much  importance  has  be^n  attached  to 
it.  Whether  this  is  to  be  understood  as  a denun- 
ciation of  the  judgments  of  God,  or  as  a predic- 
tion of  his  judgments,  I deny  the  authority  to  de- 
nounce, and  I deny  the  gift  of  prophecy  ; and 
therefore  I think  we  need  not  have  troubled  our- 
selves further  on  the  subject.” 

I now  pause  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  of 
each  of  you,  reverend  gentlemen,  in  which  one 
of  these  speeches  was  it  proposed  to  deprive 
you,  or  any  other  clergymen,  of  your  “ preroga- 
tives as  citizens,”  in  consequence  of  your 
“ office  as  ministers  ?”  In  which  one  do  you 
find  “an  outrage  upon  the  privileges  of  a 
large  and  respectable  body  of  citizens  ?” 

I have  proven  affirmatively  and  conclusively 
that  each  and  all  of  the  senators  against  whom 
you  made  this  serious  charge  did,  in  the  de- 
bate to  which  you  refer,  distinctly  recognise 
and  concede  to  all  clergymen,  of  whatever  de- 
nomination, the  undoubted  right  to  “petition 
government  for  the  redress  of  grievances,”  un- 
der the  authority  of  the  Constitution,  in  the 
same  manner  and  with  the  same  force  as  all 
other  citizens.  You  will  therefore  permit  me 
to  suggest  to  you,  with  entire  respect,  that  it  is 
due  to  your  own  character,  “as  ministers  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,”  as  citizens,  and  as 
fair  men  who  are  bound  by  a high  moral  and 
religious  obligation  to  do  justice  to  all  men,  to 
withdraw  the  injurious  imputations  you  have 
made  upon  the  reputation  of  these  distinguished 
senators,  and  to  make  an  open  and  public 
confession  of  the  injustice  you  have  done  them 
in  connexion  with  myself.  You  must  do  this  ; 
you  cannot  fail  to  do  it,  unless  you  claim,  by 
virtue  of  your  “ office  as  ministers,”  to  be  in- 


vested  with  civil  and  political  rights  and  pow- 
ers not  possessed  by  citizens  as  such,  not 
secured  or  conferred  by  the  Constitution  or  any 
other  human  authority,  but  of  divine  origin, 
whereby  you  are  empowered,  “ in  the  name  of 
the  Almighty  God,”  to  command  the  Senate 
to  decide  a political  and  legislative  question  in 
the  way  you  shall  indicate! 

After  a careful  and  critical  examination  of 
your  protest  against  the  Nebraska  bill,  and  of 
your  resolutions  in  affirmance  of  your  divine 
right  to  denounce  that  measure,  in  the  name 
and  by  the  authority  of  the  Almighty,  I fear 
that  it  is  your  purpose  to  claim  and  exercise 
this  prerogative  of  the  Deity  upon  legislative 
and  political  questions.  Let  me  recall  your  at- 
tention to  this  remarkable  protest : 

To  the  honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assem- 
bled: 

“ The  undersigned,  clergymen  of  different  reli- 
gious denominations  in  the  northwestern  States, 
as  citizens,  and  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  hereby,  in  the  name  of  Almighty  God, 
and  in  his  presence,  do  solemnly  protest  against 
the  passage  of  what  is  known  as  the  ‘ Nebraska 
bill,”  or  any  repeal  or  modification  of  existing  legal 
prohibitions  of  slavery  in  that  part  of  our  national 
domain  which  it  is  proposed_  to  organize  into  the 
territories  of  Nebraska  ahd  Kansas. 

“ We  protest  against  it  as  a great  moral  wrong; 
as  a breach  of  faith  eminently  injurious  to  the 
moral  principles  of  the  community,  and  subversive 
of  all  confidence  in  national  engagements ; as  a 
matter  full  of  danger  to  the  peace,  and  even  exis- 
tence, of  our  beloved  Union,  and  exposing  us  to 
righteous  judgments  of  the  Almighty. 

“ And  your  protestants,  as  in  duty  bound,  will 
ever  pray.” 

With  the  exception  of  the  description  of  your 
locality  “ in  the  northwestern  States”  instead 
“ of  New  England”  and  of  the  interpolation  of 
the  words  “ as  citizens,”  this  protest  is  an  ex- 
act copy  of  the  one  presented  to  the  Senate 
from  the  clergymen  of  New  Englanclupon  which 
the  debate  occurred  which  you  have  condemned. 
After  reading  that  debate  and  seeing  the  na- 
ture of  the  objections  urged  to  the  New  Eng- 
land protest,  it  seems  that  you  determined  to 
present  yourselves  to  the  Senate  in  a two-fold 
capacity — the  one  “ as  citizens”  and  the  other 
“ as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.” 
Nobody  questions  your  right ; no  one  denies 
the  propriety  of  your  exercising  the  constitu- 
tional right  of  petitioning  government  for  re- 
dress of  grievances  in  your  capacity  as  citi- 
zens; nor  can  there  be  any  well-founded  objec- 
tion to  your  adding  these  other  words,  “ as 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,”  if 
done  only  as  illustrative  of  your  relations  to 
society  and  of  your  profession  and  occupation 


in  life.  This  was  not  the  obnoxious  feature  in 
the  New  England  protest.  The  objection  urged 
to  that  paper  was,  that  the  clergymen  who  had 
signed  it,  did  not  protest  in  their  own  names,  as 
clergymen,  or  citizens,  or  human  beings,  or  in 
the  name  of  any  human  authority  or  civil  right, 
but  they  assumed  the  divine  prerogative  and 
spoke  to  the  Senate  “ in  the  name  of  Almighty 
God!” 

With  a full  knowledge  that  senators  in  the 
debate  to  which  you  have  alluded,  understood 
the  New  England  protest  in  this  light — and  as 
asserting  a divine  power  in  the  clergy  of  this 
I country  higher  than  the  obligations  of  the  Con- 
I stitution,  and  above  the  sovereignty  o’fthe  peo- 
j pie  and  of  the  States — to  command  the  sena- 
tors by  the  authority  of  Heaven  and  under 
the  penalty  of  exposing  'them  “ to  the  right- 
eous judgment  of  the  Almighty,”  to  vote  in  a 
particular  way  upon  a given  question,  you 
now  readopt  the  protest  and  repeat  the  com- 
mand in  the  identical  language  in  which  it 
was  originally  issued.  This  looks  as  if  it  was 
your  fixed  and  deliberate  purpose,  as  clergy- 
men, to  force  an  issue  upon  this  point  with  the 
civil  and  political  authorities  of  the  republic.  If 
there  were  room  for  doubt  or  misapprehension, 
in  this  respect,  on  the  face  of  the  New  England 
protest,  you  have  removed  all  obscurity  and 
avowed  the  purpose  distinctly  and  boldly  in  the 
resolutions  which  you  adopted  at  the  time  you 
signed  your  protest : 

“ Resolved  1st.  That  the  ministry  is  the  divinely 
appointed  institution  for  the  declaration  and  en- 
forcement of  God’s  will  upon  all  points  of  moral 
and  religious  truth ; and  that  as  such,  it  is  their 
duty  to  reprove,  rebuke,  and  exhort,  with  all 
authority  and  doctrine.” 

This  resolution  appears  to  have  been  adopted 
by  you  at  an  Anti-Nebraska  meeting,  (com- 
posed exclusively  of  clergymen,  twenty-five  in 
number,)  and  called  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
sidering that  question  and  none  other.  It  was 
adopted  in  connexion  with  the  protest,  and 
forms  a part  of  the  same  transaction.  The 
protest  denounces  the  Nebraska  Bill  “in  the 
name  of  Almighty  God”  as  “ a great  moral 
wrong  ” — as  a breach  of  faith  eminently  in- 
jurious to  moral  principle  of  the  community,” 
and,  “'as  exposing  us  to  the  righteous  judg- 
ments of  the  Almighty.”  The  resolution  de- 
clares “ that  the  ministry  is  the  divinely-ap- 
pointed institution  for  the  declaration  and  en- 
forcement of  God's  will  upon  all  points  of  moral 
and  religious  truth  1"  Do  not  the  protest  and 
resolution  refer  to  the  same  question,  to  wit, 
the  Nebraska  bill  now  pending  before  Con- 
gress? Surely  you  will  not  deny  that  such  was 
your  understanding.  You  assembled  to  con- 


8 


aider  that  question  and  none  other.  You  acted 
upon  that  subject  and  that  alone.  Your 
resolutions  were  declaratory  of  the  extent  of 
your  rights  and  powers  as  clergymen,  and  your 
protest  was  your  action  in  conformity  with 
those  assumed  rights  and  powers. 

I understand,  then,  your  position  to  be  this: 
that  you  are  “ministers  of  the  Gospel;”  that 
“the  ministry  is  the  divinely-appointed  institu- 
tion for  the  declaration  and  enforcement  of 
God’s  will  upon  all  points  of  moral  and  reli- 
gious truth;”  that  this  “ divinely-appointed  | 
institution”  is  empowered  “to  declare”  what] 
questions  of  a civil,  political,  judicial,  or  legis- ; 
lative  character,  do  involve  “points  of  moral 
and  religious  truth;”  that  the  Nebraska  bill 
does  involve  such  “points,”  and  is,  therefore,  ] 
one  of  the  questions  upon  which  it  is  the  duty 
of  this  “divinely-appointed  institution”  to  “de- 
clare and  enforce  God’s  will ;”  and  that,  clothed 
with  “all  authority  and  doctrine,”  this  “divinely 
appointed  institution”  proceeds  to  issue  its 
mandates  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
“in  the  name  of  the  Almighty  God.”  This 
being  your  position,  I must  be  permitted  to 
say  to  you,  in  all  Christian  kindness,  that  I 
differ  with  you  widely,  radically,  and  funda- 
mentally, in  respect  to  the  nature  and  extent 
of  your  rights,  duties,  and  powers,  as  ministers 
of  the  Gospel.  If  the  claims  of  this  “divinely- 
appointed  institution”  shall  be  enforced,  and 
the  various  public  functionaries  shall  yield  their 
judgments  to  your  supervision,  and  their  con- 
sciences to  your  keeping,  there  will  be  no  limit 
to  your  temporal  power  except  your  own  wise 
discretion  and  virtuous  forbearance.  If  your 
“divinely-appointed  institution”  has  the  power 
to  prescribe  the  mode  and  terms  for  the  organi- 
zation of  Nebraska,  I see  no  reason  why  your 
authority  may  not  be  extended  over  the  entire 
continent,  not  only  to  the  country  which  we  now 
possess,  but  to  all  which  may  hereafter  be  ac- 
quired. 

Nor  do  you  propose  to  confine  your  opera-  ] 
tions  to  the  supervision  and  direction  of  the  I 
action  of  Congress  in  the  organization  of  ter- ; 
ritorial  governments  and  the  admission  of  new  ; 
States  into  the  Union.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
of  any  matter  of  private  or  public  concern, 
pending  before  Congress,  or  in  the  legislatures  of 
the  different  States,  or  in  the  judicial  tribunals, 
which  does  not  quite  as  much  as  the  Nebraska 
bill  “ involve  some  point  of  moral  and  religious 
truth;”  and  we  are  informed,  in  your  resolution, 
that  “ upon  all  points  of  moral  and  religious 
truth”  the  “ ministry  is  the  divinely-appointed 
institution  for  the  declaration  and  enforcement 
of  God’s  will.”  I do  not  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  intimating  that  it  is  your  present  pur- 


pose, through  the  agency  of  this  “ divinely-ap- 
pointed institution,”  to  declare  and  enforce 
God’s  will”  in  all  matters  affecting  our  foreign 
policy  and  domestic  concerns,  nor  that  you  in- 
tend to  direct  the  movements  of  the  political 
parties,  and  control  the  local  and  general  elec- 
tions throughout  the  country.  It  is  enough  to 
fil]  with  alarm  the  mind  of  every  patriot,  and 
touring  sorrow  and  grief  to  the  heart  of  every 
Christian,  that  you  have  asserted  the  right  to 
do  this  in  all  cases,  and  have  in  one  case  at- 
tempted the  exercise-  of  this  divine  preroga- 
tive “ in  the  name  of  Almighty  God.”  It°is 
true  that,  while  you  assert  the  right,  in  the 
broadest  terms,  and  propose  now  to  establish 
a precedent  which  will  justify  its  exercise  in 
all  future  tin.?,  in  your  second  resolution  you 
“disclaim  al!  desire”  to  do  certain  things  from 
which  it  might  be  inferred,  on  first  view, 
that  you  do  not  intend  to  meddle  with  party 
politics,  nor  attempt  to  control  the  political 
movements  of  the  day.  This,  however,  turns 
out  to  be  illusory,  on  a closer  examination. 

“ Resolved,  2d.  That  while  we  disclaim  all  desire 
to  interfere  in  questions  of  war  and  policy,  or  to 
mingle  in  the  conflicts  of  political  parties,  it  is  our 
] duty  to  recognise  the  moral  bearing  of  such  ques- 
tions and  conflicts,  and  to  proclaim,  in  reference 
I thereunto,  no  less  than  toother  departments  of 
' human  interest,  the  principle  of  inspired  truth 
i and  obligation.” 

You  do  not  “desire  to  interfere  in  questions 
of  war  and  policy.”  Thus  far  I heartily  ap- 
prove. I rejoice  to  see  that  you  are  willing  to 
leave  the  question  of  war  where  the  Constitu- 
tion has  placed  it — in  the  hands  of  Congress, 
as  the  representatives  of  the  people  and  the 
States  of  the  Union. 

You  “disclaim  all  desire,”  also,  “to  mingle 
in  the  conflicts  of  political  parties.”  This 
sentiment  is  admirable.  It  will  meet  the  cor- 
dial approbation  of  every  patriot  and  Chris- 
tian. But  you  immediately  follow  it  with  the 
declaration  that  “ it  is  our  duty  to  recognise 
the  moral  bearing  of  such  questions  and  con- 
flicts!” You  do  not  desire  to  engage  in  war 
nor  to  fight  the  battles  of  your  country,  but 
you  do  claim  that  it  is  your  right,  and,  if  you 
please,  your  duty,  by  virtue  of  your  office  as 
ministers,  through  the  agency  of  this  divinely- 
appointed  institution,  to  declare,  in  the  name 
of  Almighty  God,  a war,  in  which  your  country 
is  engaged  with  a foreign  power,  to  be  immoral 
and  unrighteous,  although  the  representatives 
of  the  people  and  of  the  States,  in  pursuance 
of  the  Constitution,  have  declared  it  to  be 
just  and  necessary.  And  this,]  not  in  the 
course  of  your  ordinary  pastoripl  duties  to 
your  several  congregations,  but  as  an  organ- 


9 

ized  body  speaking  to  the  constituted  authorities 
of  the  nation.  I cannot  recognise  the  princi- 
ple that.,  while  you  are  protected  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  your  rights  as  citizens  of  all  your 
just  rights  as  ministers,  you  are  yet  released, 
by  virtue  of  your  office  as  ministers,  from 
your  allegience  to  the  country  during  war,  and 
from  your  obligation  of  obedience  to  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws  and  constituted  authorities 
at  all  times. 

You  also  say  that  you  consider  it  your  duty  j 
to  take  cognizance  of  “ the  moral  bearing  of 
the  conflicts  of  the  different  political  parties.”  j 
The  moral  bearing  of  the  democratic  party,  i 
and  of  the  whig  party,  and  of  the  abolition 
party  are  each  to  be  recognised  by  your  divinely 
appointed  institution : and  you  then  add  that  | 
it  is  your  duty  “ to  proclaim  in  reference  there-  | 
unto  the  principle  of  inspired  truth  and  obliga- 
tion.” You  propose,  through  your  divinely-ap- 
poiuted  institution,  to  apply  the  test  of  “ in- 
spired truth  ” to  each  of  the  political  organiza- 
tions and  to  their  respective  conflicts,  and  “ to 
reprove,  rebuke,  and  exhort  with  all  authority 
and  doctrine,”  in  the  name  of  the  great  Jeho- 
vah. With  all  due  respect  for  you,  as  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel,  I cannot  recognise  in  your 
divinely  appointed  institution  the  power  either 
of  prophecy  or  of  revelation.  I have  never  re- 
cognised the  existence  of  that  power  in  any 
man  on  ea  ih  during  my  day.  Only  a few 
years  since,  anu  within  the  period  of  your  own 
vivid  recollection,  the  priesthood  of  a religious 
sect, calling  themselves  Latter-day  Saints,  claim- 
ed for  themselves  the  same  right,  by  virtue  of 
their  divinely-appointed  institution,  to  declare 
and  enforce  God’s  will  on  earth  in  respect  to 
“all  points  of  moral  and  religious  truth.”  They 
also  declared  that  it  was  their  duty  to  recognise 
“ the  moral  bearing  of  the  conflicts  of  the  po- 
litical parties,  and  to  “ proclaim  in  reference 
thereunto  the  principle  of  inspired  truth  and 
obligation.”  When  the  Mormon  prophet  pro- 
claimed the  principle  of  inspired  truth,  “ in  the 
name  of  the  Almighty  God,”  and  through  the 
agency  of  his  divinely-appointed  institution, 
that  it  was  the  decree  of  heaven  that  Stephen 
A.  Douglas  should  be  beaten,  and  his  oppo- 
nent elected  to  Congress  in  the  Quincy  district, 
the  people  of  that  portion  of  Illinois  did  not 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  prophet,  nor 
did  the  result  of  the  election  strengthen  my 
opinion  in  the  validity  of  his  claims. 

I have  wandered  over  distant  and  extensive 
portions  of  the  globe,  during  the  past  ear. 
where  the  successor  of  Mahomet,  proclaimed 
and  enforced  God’s  will  on  earth,  accordii  g to 
the  principles  of  inspired  truth  and  obligation, 
as  recorded  in  the  Koran;  and,  by  the  potency 


of  his  divinely-appointed  institution,  held,  in  the 
hollow  of  his  hand,  and  suspended  upon  his 
breath,  the  lives,  the  liberties,  and  the  property 
of  millions  of  men,  women,  and  children.  When 
within  his  dominions  and  surrounded  by  his 
bayonets,  I had  neither  the  time  nor  the  dis- 
position to  argue  the  question  of  his  right  to 
“reprove,  rebuke,  and  exhort,  with  all  author- 
ity and  doctrine,”  in  the  name  of  the  Almighty! 
But,  when  I set  foot  on  the  shores  of  my  native 
land,  under  the  broad  folds  of  our  national  flag, 
and,  surrounded  by  the  protecting  genius  of  our 
American  institutions,  I did  not  feel  like  recog- 
nizing any  such  rightful  authority  of  that  di- 
vinely-appointed institution,  in  temporal  affairs, 
here  or  elsewhere. 

Your  claims  for  the  supremacy  of  this  divine- 
ly-appointed institution  are  subversive  of  the 
fundamental  principles  upon  which  our  whole 
republican  system  rests.  What  the  necessity 
of  a Congress,  if  you  can  supervise  and  direct 
its  conduct?  Why  should  the  people  subject 
themselves  to  the  trouble  and  expense  of  elect- 
ing legislatures  for  the  purpose  of  enacting  hu- 
man laws,  if  their  validity  depends  upon  the 
sanction  of  your  divine  authority  ? Why  sus- 
tain a vast  and  complex  judicial  system  to  ex- 
pound the  laws,  administer  justice,  and  deter- 
mine all  disputes  in  respect  to  human  rights, 
if  your  divinely-appointed  institution  is  invest- 
ed with  all  authority  to  prescribe  the  rule  of 
decision  in  the  name  of  the  Deity?  If  your 
pretensions  be  just  and  valid,  why  not  dispense 
with  all  the  machinery  of  human  government 
and  subject  ourselves  freely  and  unreservedly, 
together  with  all  our  temporal  and  spiritual  in- 
terests and  hopes,  to  the  justice  and  mercy  of 
this  divinely  appointed  institution? 

Our  fathers  held  that  the  people  were  the 
only  true  source  of  all  political  power ; but 
what  avails  this  position,  if  the  constituted  au- 
thorities established  by  the  people  are  to  be 
controlled  and  directed — not  by  their  own 
judgment,  not  by  the  will  of  their  constituents, 
but  by  the  divinely-constituted  power  of  the 
clergy?  Does  it  not  follow  that  this  great 
principle,  recognised  and  affirmed  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  and  of  every 
State  of  this  Union,  is  thus  virtually  annulled, 
and  the  representatives  of  the  people  convert- 
ed into  machines  in  the  hands  of  an  all-con- 
trolling priesthood? 

The  will  of  the  people,  expressed  in  obe- 
dience to  the  forms  and  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution, is  the  supreme  law  of  this  land.  But 
| your  office  as  ministers”  is  not  provided  for 
j in  the  Constitution.  Your  divinely-appointed 
I institution  is  not  recognised  in  that  instrument. 
' Nowhere  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  of 


10 


the  States,  or  of  the  United  States,  is  there  to 
be  found  a provision  constituting  or  recog- 
nising you  and  your  brethren  “ the  divinely- 
appointed  institution  for  the  declaration  and 
enforcement  of  God’s  will and  therefore,  in 
your  character  as  a body  of  ministers,  you 
cannot  claim  any  political  power  under  our 
system  of  govornment. 

The  persecutions  of  our  ancestors  were  too 
fresh  in  the  memories  of  our  revolutionary  fa- 
thers for  them  to  create,  recognise,  or  even 
tolerate,  a church  establishment  in  this  coun- 
try, clothed  with  temporal  authority.  So  ap- 
prehensive were  they  of  the  usurpations  of 
this,  the  most  fearful  and  corrupting  of  all 
despotisms,  whether  viewed  with  reference  to 
the  purity  of  the  church  or  the  happiness  of 
the  people,  that  they  provided  in  the  Constitu- 
tion that  “ no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  re- 
quired as  a qualification  to  any  office  or  public 
trust  under  the  United  States.”  Still,  fearful 
that,  in  the  process  of  time,  a spirit  of  religious 
fanaticism,  or  a spirit  of  ecclesiastical  domina- 
tion, (yet  more  to  be  dreaded,  because  cool  and 
calculating,)  might  seize  upon  some  exciting 
political  topic,  and  in  an  evil  hour  surprise 
or  entrap  the  people  into  a dangerous  conces- 
sion of  political  power  to  the  clergy,  the  first 
Congress  under  the  Constitution  proposed,  and 
the  people  adopted,  an  amendment  to  guard 
against  such  a calamity,  in  the  following  words: 

“ Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an 
establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free 
exercise  thereof.” 

The  doctrine  of  our  fathers  was,  and  the 
principle  of  the  Constitution  is,  that'  every  hu- 
man being  has  an  inalienable,  divinely-conferred 
right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience  ; and  that  no  earthly  in- 
stitution, nor  any  “institution”  on  earth,  can 
rightfully  deprive  him  of  that  sacred  and  ines- 
timable privilege. 

However,  it  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  in- 
quire into  the  extent  of  your  authority  in 
spiritual  affairs.  That  is  a question  between 
you  and  your  respective  congregations,  with 
which  I have  neither  right  nor  wish  to  inter- 
fere. 

All  that  I have  said,  and  all  that  I propose 
to  say,  has  direct  reference  to  the  vindication 
of  my  character  and  position  against  the  un- 
justifiable assaults  which  you  have  made  in  re- 
gard to  my  official  action  in  the  Senate.  I 
repeat  that  your  assumption  of  power  from 
the  Almighty,  to  direct  and  control  the  civil 
authorities  of  this  country,  is  in  derogation  of 
the  Constitution,  subversive  of  the  principles  of 
free  government,  and  destructive  of  all  the 


guarantees  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  The 
sovereign  right  of  the  people  to  manage  their 
own  affairs  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution 
of  their  own  making,  recedes  and  disappears, 
when  placed  in  subordination  to  the  authority 
of  a body  of  men,  claiming,  by  virtue  of  their 
offices  as  ministers,  to  he  a divinely-appointed 
institution  for  the  declaration  and  enforcement 
of  God’s  v/ill  on  earth. 

If  your  objection  to  the  Nebraska  bill  con- 
sists in  the  fact  that  it  asserts  the  great  prin- 
ciple ’of  self-government  and  declares  the  right 
of  the  people  to  regulate  their  domestic  con- 
cerns in  their  own  way,  and  thus,  by  implication, 
denies-  your  right  of  supremacy,  you  are  acting 
consistently  with  your  own  principles  in  op- 
posing it. 

Upon  a careful  examination  of  your  protest, 
it  is  certain  that  you  have  acted  under  a total 
misapprehension  of  the  principles  and  provi- 
sions of  the  bill,  unless  you  object  to  it  solely 
upon  the  ground  that  it,  recognises  the  pro- 
priety of  leaving  to  the  people  of  these  Ter- 
ritories what  is  the  undoubted  right  of  the 
States  to  govern  themselves  in  respect  to  their 
local  and  domestic  concerns.  On  the  supposi- 
tion that  you  may  have  formed  your  opinions 
from  unreliable  sources  of  information,  in  the 
absence  of  the  opportunity  of  reading  the  bill 
itself,  I have  copied,  the  only  provision  to  which 
your  protest  can  possibly  be  construed  to  refer : 

“ Sec.  14.  That  the  Constitution,  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  which  are  not  locally  inapplica- 
ble, shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the 
said  Territory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within 
the  United  States,  except  the  eighth  section  of  the 
act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into 
the  Union,  approved  March  6,  1820,  which,  being 
inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Ter- 
ritories, ps  recognised  by  the  legislation  of  1850, 
commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  is 
hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void;  it  being  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude 
it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  per- 
fectly free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  in- 
stitutions in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  : Provided,  That 
nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  re- 
vive or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which 
may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  0th  March, 
1820,  either  protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting, 
or  abolishing  slavery.” 

If  the  Nebraska  bill  shall  become  the  law  of 
the  land,  those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  may 
emigrate  to  that  country,  will  find  it,  in  respect 
to  its  jurisprudence,  in  precisely  the  same  con- 
dition as  our  ancestors  found  Plymouth  rock — 
with  no  code  of  laws,  no  system  of  political, 
civil,  social,  and  domestic  institutions,  but  with 


11 


full  power  and  authority  to  enact  and  establish 
for  themselves  such  laws  and  institutions  as 
they  shall  deem  wise,  just,  and  necessary;  sub- 
ject only  to  such  limitation  as  is  imposed  by  the 
Constitution.  Do  you  wish  to  have  the  people 
of  this  country  to  understand  that  you  claim  the 
Divine  authority  for  saying  that  it  is  “a  great 
moral  wrong,”  a violation  “of  God’s  will,”  and 
an  infringement  of  His  holy  law,  for  Congress 
to  allow  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  enact 
and  establish  for  themselves  their  own  laws 
and  institutions,  in  obedience  to  the  Constitu- 
tion their  fathers  have  made,  and  to  remove  all 
legal  obstructions  in  the  way  of  the  exercise  of 
such  rights?  This  is  all  that  the  Nebraska 
bill  proposes  to  do.  It,  therefore,  you  continue 
to  oppose  it,  you  must  confine  your  opposition 
directly  and  exclusively  to  this  great  principle 
of  self-government,  for  you  have  neither  pointed 
out  nor  intimated  in  your  protest  the  existence 
of  any  other  objections  than  those  which  stand 
as  obstacles  in  the  way  of  carrying  this  princi- 
ple into  complete  effect. 

Perhaps  you  will  tell  me  that  you  are  in  favor 
of  that  principle  which  allows  the  people  to 
enact  such  laws  as  they  may  choose,  and  that 
you  oppose  the  bill  only  because  it  abrogates 
the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  1820,  sometimes 
called  the  Missouri  compromise.  Before  you 
assume  that  position,  I must  be  permitted  to 
remind  you  that  it  is  necessary,  yea,  absolutely 
indispensable,  to  render  the  eighth  section  of 
the  Missouri  act  inoperative  and  void  in  order 
to  enable  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves 
freely  upon  all  subjects  touching  their  local  in- 
terests and  domestic  concerns.  You  must 
therefore  abandon  your  objection  to  the  annul- 
ment of  that  section,  or  persevere  in  your  oppo- 
sition to  the  principle  upon  which  the  bill  is 
founded. 

In  your  protest,  (alluding,  I presume,  to  the 
annulment  of  the  Missouri  restriction,)  you  de- 
nounce the  Nebraska  bill  “ as  a great  moral 
wrong;  as 'a  breach  of  faith  imminently  inju- 
rious to  the  moral  principles  of  the  community, 
and  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  national 
engagements,”  and  “ exposing  us  to  the  righte- 
ous judgments  of  the  Almighty  1” 

I am  rejoiced  to  learn  that  the  “clergymen 
of  different  denominations”  in  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago have  come  to  the  firm  conclusion  that  “ a 
breach  of  faith,”  that  the  non-fulfillment  of  “na- 
tional engagements”  is  “a  great  moral  wrong,”  ' 
exposing  the  offenders  “to  the  righteous  judg-  ! 
ments  of  the  Almighty  !” 

I remember  well  my  feelings  upon  this  sub- 
ject, in  October,  1850.  I should  then  have  re-  j 
joiced  with  exceeding  great  joy  to  have  heard  ij 
from  your  lips,  to  have  known  that  you  were  " 


ready  to  proclaim  in  your  pulpits  and  in  pub- 
| lie  places^  the  sanctity  of  “ national  engage- 
ments,” and  the  “great  moral  wrong”  of  their 
' non-fulfillment;  and  especially  when  contained 
in  the  Constitution  our  fathers  made  for  us, 
and  upon  which  all  patriots  now  look  as  the 
ark  of  our  safety.  I have  no  recollection  that 
when  the  common  council  of  the  city  of 
Chicago  by  resolutions,  refused  to  carry  into 
effect  the  “ national  engagements”  contained 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  for 
the  return  of  fugitives  from  service,  when  the 
council  nullified  an  act  of  Congress  passed  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  those  national  engagements 
into  faithful  execution  ; when  the  council  called 
upon  the  police  to  refrain  from  rendering  any 
assistance  in  executing  the  law ; -when  public 
meetings  were  held,  and  speeches  made  pro- 
posing to  defy  death  and  the  dungeon  in  re- 
sistance to  the  fulfillment  of  these  “ nat.onal 
engagements  1”  I say  I have  no  recollection 
that,  on  the  solemn  and  fearful  occasion  re- 
j ferred  to,  any  one  of  your  “divinely-appointed 
j institution”  appeared  on  the  stand,  or  in  the 
j pulpit,  or  elsewhere  to  proclaim,  “in  the  name 
j of  Almighty  God,”  that  the  non-fulfillment  of 
[“national  engagements  was  a great  moral 
wrong,  exposing  us  to  the  righteous  judgments 
j of  the  Almighty  1”  The  particulars  of  that 
wild  and  terrific  scene  remain  vividly  impressed 
upon  my  memory ; but  I repeat,  that  I have 
not  the  slightest  recollection  that  any  one  of 
you  was  ever  suspected  of  a desire  to  see  the  law 
enforced,  much  less  to  contribute  even  moral 
aid  to  its  execution. 

There  is,  however,  this  difference  in  the  two 
cases : the  national  ^rgagement  for  the  return 
of  fugitives  from  service  was  incorporated 
into  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
therefore  forms  a part  of  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land  ; while  the  national  engagements,  to 
which  you  refer,  as  constituting  what  has  been 
called  an  irrevocable  compact,  under  the  name 
of  the  Missouri  compromise,  have  no  existence 
j in  fact,  are  unsustained  by  the  terms  of  the 
law  and  contradicted  by  the  record  of  the  trans- 
[ action.  You  have,  doubtless,  been  misled 
by  the  positive  statements  which  have  been 
solemnly  put  forth  that  the  act  of  Congress  of 
the  6 th  of  March,  1820,  constituted  a sacred 
and  irrevocable  compact  between  the  north  and 
the  south,  whereby,  in  consideration  of  the  ad- 
mission of  Missouri  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States,  it  was  stipulated  that  sla- 
very should  be  forever  excluded  from  all  the 
residue  of  the  country  acquired  from  France 
north  of  latitude  36°  30'  ; and  that  the  north 
has  always  been  faithful  in  the  performance  of 
I its  part  of  the  obligations,  and  that  the  south, 


( 


12 


having  secured  all  its  advantages,  now  seeks  to 
be  released  from  its  incumbrances.  I have  the 
charity  to  believe  that  you  have  been  misled 
by  this  erroneous  and  unfounded  statement, 
which,  in  an  imposing  form,  has  been  spread 
broadcast  throughout  the  free  States,  and  is 
now  everywhere  being  circulated  and  repeated 
for  partisan  purposes  ; and,  relying  on  the  truth 
of  the  statement,  and  acting  under  that  fatal 
delusion,  you  have  had  the  misfortune  to  pro- 
nounce judgment  “in  the  name  of  the  Almighty 
God.” 

If  you  will  condescend  to  listen  to  human 
authority,  to  legislative  enactments,  and  con- 
gressional journals,  in  derogation  of  your  di- 
vine testimony,  you  will  find  that  Missouri  was 
never  admitted  into  the  Union,  under  the  act 
of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  called  the  Missouri 
compromise  ; that,  if  the  said  act  was  an  irre- 
vocable compact,  it  was  disavowed  and  repu- 
diated by  the  north  within  eleven  months  from 
its  date ; that  Missouri,  having  formed  a con- 
stitution conformable  in  all  respects  to  said 
act,  was  denied  admission  into  the  Union  in 
February,  1821,  by  northern  votes;  that  the 
north,  by  a vote  of  61  to  33,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Mallory,  of  Vermont,  refused  to  admit  Mis- 
souri into  the  Union,  with  a constitution  cor- 
responding with  the  precise  terms  of  the  al- 
leged compact,  unless,  “in  addition”  thereto, 
she  would  “ further  provide,  in  and  by  said  con- 
stitution, that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  shall  ever  be  allowed  in  said  State  of  J 
Missouri that,  in  consequence  of  the  refusalof 
the  representatives  from  the  northern  States  to 
carry  into  effect  what  is  known  as  the  compro- 
mise of  1820,  Missouri  w^s  compelled  to  sub- 
mit to  a new  one,  in  the  form  of  an  irrevocable 
compact  between  that  State  and  the  United 
States,  by  the  terms  of  which  she  was  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  on  a new  “condition,” 
unlike  anything  contained  in  the  act  of  1820; 
that  this  compact  was  entered  into  and  ap- 
proved on  the  2d  of  March,  1821  ; that  Mis- 
souri complied  with  the  condition  in  the  month 
of  June  thereafter;  and  that,  on  the  10th  of 
August,  1821,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  issued  his  proclamation  declaring  the 
fulfillment  of  the  “condition”  on  the  part  of 
Missouri,  and  the  admission  of  such  State  into 
the  Union  “in  pursuance  of  the  joint  resolu- 
tion” or  “irrevocable  compact”  of  March  2, 
1821,  and  not  in  conformity , with  the  act  of 
1820.  If  there  is  any  reliance  upon  human 
testimony,  if  there  is  any  faith  to  be  attached 
to  historical  and  official  records,  these  facts  are 
true.  Being  true,  there  is  no  provision  in  the 
“national  engagement,”  contained  in  the  joint 
resolution  of  1821,  under  which  Missouri  was 


admitted  into  the  Union,  whereby  slavery  was 
prohibited  north  of  36°  30k  or  elsewhere  in  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States;  nor  does  the 
Nebraska  bill  propose  to  repeal,  impair,  or  in 
any  manner  affect  that  “irrevocable  compact.” 
Is  it  not  manifest,  therefore,  according  to  all 
the  evidences  accessible  to  the  human  under- 
[ standing,  that  you  have  labored  under  a lam- 
entable delusion  in  supposing  that  the  Ne- 
braska bill  involved  “a  breach  of  faith  emi- 
nently injurious  to  the  morals  of  the  commu- 
nity and  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  na- 
i gagements?” 

When  you  shall  have  withdrawn  the  un- 
founded allegation  that  the  bill  involves  “ a 
breach  of  faith,”  and  shall  have  made  public 
confession  of  the  injustice  you  have  done  the 
Senate  in  this  particular,  perhaps  you  will 
conceive  it  to  be  your  d uty  to  persevere  in  your 
opposition  to  its  pa  sage,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  renders  inoperative  and  void  the  eighth 
section  of  the  act  of  1820,  in  which  Congress 
assumed  the  right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  that 
country,  not  only  win  - it  should  remain  a 
territory,  but  in  all  time  to  come,  after  it  shall 
have  been  subdivided  and  admitted  into  the 
Union  as  sovereign  and  independent  States. 
Reminding  you  again  that  it  was  necessary  to 
render  that  section  inoperative  and  void  in  or- 
der to  recognise  the  great  principle  of  self- 
government  and  State  equality,  and  to  leave 
the  people  free  o regulate  their  local  cor.ee  • a 
and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way, 
you  will  discover  that  your  opposition  is  con- 
fined excl  usively  to  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty.  It  does  not  vary  the  question  in 
any  degree,  that  human  slavery  is,  in  your 
opinion,  a great  moral  wrong.  If  so,  it  is  not 
the  only  wrong  upon  which  the  people  of  each 
of  the  States  and  Territories  of  this  Union  are 
called  upon  to  act  and  decide  for  themselves. 
In  the  opinion  of  a large  ant]  respectable  por- 
tion of  our  people,  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  ardent  spirits  and  intoxicating  drinks  is  a 
monstrous  wrong,  eminently  injurious  to  the 
morals  of  the  community.  While  these  opin- 
ions are  honestly  entertained,  and  vigorous 
efforts  are  being  made  to  induce  the  legisla- 
tures of  the  different  States  and  Territories  to 
pass  laws  for  their  enforcement,  I have  wit- 
nessed no  attempt  to  induce  Congress  to  de- 
clare the  “ Maine  law”  to  be  in  force  in  ail  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States,  and  to  re- 
main in  force  forever  in  the  States  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  wishes 
of  the  people  to  be  affected  thereby. 

A very  large  and  exemplary  portion  of  our 
Christian  community  firmly  believe  that  the 
practice  of  carrying  the  mails,  of  running 


13 


stage-coaches  for  the  conveyance  of  passen- 
gers, and  of  keeping  open  public  houses  and 
bar-rooms  for  gain  on  Sunday,  is  a great  moral 
wrong ; yet  if  Congress  should  propose  to  de- 
clare, by  a fundamental  and  irrevocable  act, 
that,  in  all  time  tocome.  such  practices  should 
never  be  tolerated  in  any  of  the  territory  which 
we  now  possess  or  may  hereafter  acquire,  nor 
in  any  new  State  to  he  formed  from  such  terri- 
tory, it  is  possible  that  another  portion  of 
the  Christian  community,  equally  exemplary 
and  sincere,  might  rise  up  and  say  that  it  is 
our  firm  conviction,  after  a thorough  examina- 
tion of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  the  seventh 
day,  instead  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  is 
the  Sabbath  which  God  has  commanded  us  to 
keep  holy ; and  that,  if  this  law  passes,  you 
exclude  us  and  our  brethren  and  descendants 
forever  from  settling  in  those  territories  and 
States,  or  compel  us  to  conform  to  an  article 
of  religious  faith  repugnant  to  our  conscien- 
tious belief.  Although  you  may  be  of  the 
opinion,  and  doubtless  are,  that  the  practice 
of  performing  secular  duties,  and  attending  to 
wordly  affairs  on  Sunday,  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  law  as  recorded  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  it  does  not  appear  that  you  desire 
the  interference  of  Congress  in  this  particular 
to  deprive  the  people  of  the  Territories  and 
new  States  of  the  privilege  of  regulating  these 
matters  in  conformity  with  their  sense  of  pro- 
priety and  duty.  I trust  that  the  great  body 
of  the  American  people  look  upon  the  manu- 
facture, sale,  and  use  of  instruments  and  im- 
plements of  gaming  as  a wrong  eminently  in- 
jurious to  the  public  morals  ; yet  I have  heard 
no  objection  to  leaving  the  people  of  each 
State  and  Territory  free  to  determine  that 
question  according  to  their  sense  of  right, 
and  propriety. 

I will  not  trouble  you  further  with  this  class 
of  cases,  having  cited  enough  to  illustrate  the 
principle.  The  entire  criminal  code  of  each 
State  and  Territory  of  the  Union,  and  every 
section  and  provision  thereof,  is  supposed  to  re- 
late to  some  great  moral  wrong  which  the  peo- 
ple in  their  sovereign  capacity  have  deemed  it 
their  duty  to  prohibit,  and,  if  possible,  prevent 
by  penalties  and  punishments.  Inasmuch  as 
you  are  willing  to  leave  these  questions,  and  all 
others  which  are  supposed  to  be  injurious  to 
the  morals  of  the  community  and  prejudicial  to 
the  best  interests  of  society,  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  of  the  respective  States  and  Territories, 
would  it  not  be  better  and  wiser  to  entrust  the 
slavery  question  to  the  arbitrament  of  the  same 
authority,  rather  than  to  violate  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  self-government  which  lies  at  the  foun- 
dation of  all  our  free  iustitutions?  If  I correctly 


understand  your  position,  you  do  not  object  to 
permitting  the  people  of  the  Territories,  in  the 
same  manner  as  in  the  States,  to  exercise  all 
rightful  power  and  authority  in  all  matters 
affecting  the  rights,  interests,  and  happiness  of 
white  men.  If  the  people  are  capable  of  self- 
government,!  do  not  understand  that  it  requires 
any  higher  degree  of  intelligence,  virtue,  or 
civilization,  to  legislate  for  the  negro  than  for 
the  white  man.  It  will  not  be  pretended  thatthe 
legislature  of  any  Territory  or  State  would  or 
could,  under  the  Constitution,  deprive  any  free- 
man, black  or  white,  of  his  liberty,  except  for 
crime ; nor  will  it  be  insisted  that  Congress  has 
the  power  to  confer  any  such  authority.  Hence 
there  is  no  possibilityof  a free  man  beingreduced 
to  slavery,  or  of  the  number  of  slaves  in  the 
United  Slates  being  increased  by  the  passage 
of  the  Nebraska  bill.  The  only  effect  it  could 
possibly  have  in  respect  to  the  slave  is,  that,  in 
a certain  contingency,  he  might  he  permitted 
to  enter  the  country,  and  remain  there  as  such, 
and  in  a certain  other  contingency  he  could 
not.  If  a slave  should  be  removed  from  Ken- 
tucky to  Nebraska,  the  effect  would  be  to  re- 
duce the  number  on  the  east  side  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi to  the  same  extent  that  it  was  increased 
on  the  west,  without  enlarging  the  political 
power  of  the  master  or  producing  any  injurious 
consequences  to  the  slave;  while,  by  the  mere 
fact  of  his  removal  from  an  old  country  to  a 
new  one,  from  poor  lands  to  rich  ones,  from  a 
scarcity  to  an  abundance  of  provisions,  his 
temporal  condition  would  be  improved  and  his 
physical  comforts  increased.  His  presence  in 
the  new  Territory  could  not  in  any  mode  or 
degree  affect  or  injure  any  human  being  in  any 
other  Territory  or  State.  If  his  presence  should 
be  offensive  or  injurious  to  any  body  it  would 
be  to  the  people  of  the  Territory  or  State  where 
he  was  located.  Then,  why  not  leave  it  to  the 
people  of  such  Territory  or  State  to  decide  for 
themselves  whether  he  shall  be  permitted  to 
come  or  not?  No  body  else  has  any  interest 
in  it ; no  other  State  or  Territory  would  be  af- 
fected by  it.  It  is  purely  a question  of  domes- 
tic concern,  which,  for  weal  or  for  woe,  affects 
the  people  of  such  Territory  or  State,  and  no 
body  else.  You  think  that  you  are  abundantly 
competent  to  decide  this  question  now  and  for- 
ever. If  you  should  remove  to  Nebraska,  with 
the  view  of  making  it  your  permanent  home, 
would  you  be  any  less  competent  to  decide  it 
when  you  should  have  arrived  in  the  country? 

Thus,  you  see  that  the  principle  of  the  Ne- 
braska bill  is  purely  a question  of  self-govern- 
ment, involving  the  right  and  capacity  of  the 
people  to  make  their  own  laws  and  manage 
their  own  local  and  domestic  concerns.  This 


14 


is  the  only  controverted  principle  involved  in 
the  bill.  I am-  unwilling  to  believe  that,  upon 
mature  reflection,  and  with  all  the  advantages 
which  your  Christian  character  and  experience 
may  enable  you  to  summon  to  your  assistance, 
you  will  sanction  the  declaration  that  a propo- 
sition to  carry  this  principle  into  effect  is  “a 
great  moral  wrong,  exposing  us  to  the  right- 
eous judgments  of  the  Almighty.” 

It  is  the  principle  upon  which  the  thirteen 
colonies  separated  from  the  imperial  govern 
ment.  It  is  the  principle  in  defence  of  which 
the  battles  of  the  Revolution  were  fought.  It  is 
the  principle  to  which  all  our  free  institutions 
owe  their  existence,  and  upon  which  our  entire 
republican  system  rests.  This  great  principle 
is  recognised  and  affirmed  in  tire  Constitution 
and  bill  of  rights  of  every  State  in  this  Union 
as  the  corner-stone  in  the  temple  of  our  liberties. 
It  was  under  the  operation  of  this  principle 
that  slavery  retired  from  the  New  England 
States.  It  was  in  obedience  to  its  potential 
influence  that  slavery  disappeared  from  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania.  It  was 
by  virtue  of  this  principle  that  California  came 
into  the  Union  with  her  free  constitution.  It 
is  in  obedience  to  this  principle  that  slavery  is 
excluded  from  all  the  free  States  of  this  Union; 
and  I trust  that,  whenever,  in  God’s  provi- 
dence, it  shall  cease  in  the  States  where  it  now 
exists,  it  may  cease  under  the  operation  of  this 
principle,  and  none  other! 

In  conclusion,  reverend  gentlemen,  permit 
me  to  say  to  you,  in  all  kindness  and  sincerity, 
that  it  is  with  extreme  reluctance  that  I sub- 
mit this  vindication  of  my  character  and  posi- 


tion against  the  assaults  which,  I conceive,  you 
have  so  unjustly  made  upon  them.  My  respect 
for  your  holy  calling  would  induce  me  to  sub- 
mit, in  silence,  even  to  an  unmerited  rebuke, 
in  preference  to  engaging  in  a controversy  with 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  any  case  where 
duty  did  not  compel  me  to  speak.  The  acts 
for  which  you  have  arraigned  me  were  a part 
of  my  official  duty,  in  the  performance  of  a 
high  public  trust,  for  which  I am  responsible 
to  my  State,  to  the  Constitution,  and  to  my 
God.  The  principle  which  it  has  been  my  aim 
to  carry  into  effect,  and  for  the  support  of 
which  I have  incurred  your  displeasure,  is  the 
one  to  which  all  the  institutions  of  my  State, 
and  of  each  othey  State  of  this  confederacy,  owe 
their  existence,  and  for  the  protection  and  pre- 
servation of  which  the  Constitution  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  was  formed.  With  my  conscientious 
convictions  of  the  nature  of  the  trust  confided 
to  my  hands,  I cannot  doubt  that  fidelity  to  that 
principle  and  fidelity  to  that  Constitution  will 
carry  with  it  the  blessings  of  Heaven. 

I have  the  honor  to  be.  very  respectfully, 
your  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

To  the  Reverend  Messrs.  A.  M.  Stewart,  Henry 
Klamer,  A.  Kengon,  James  E.  Wilson,  C. 
Wenz,  Geo.  L.  Mnlfinger,  Timpson  Guyer, 
R.  H.  Richardson,  S.  Bolles,  T.  V.  Watson, 
W.  A.  Nichols,  Joseph  H.  Leonard,  J.  Mc- 
Namara, J.  M.  Weed,  J.  Sinclair,  E.  M. 
Gammon,  John  C.  Holbrook,  A.  IT.  Eggles- 
ton, Paul  Anderson,  Harvey  Curtiss,  John 
Clark,  R.  F.  Shinn,  Luther  Stone,  A.  W. 
Henderson,  and Fitch. 


Date  Due 

MAY  1 ’47  _ 

1 j 

^ 1), 

CAkREL  n 

Oftl 

JVL  6 Td 

' J ** 

Form  335— 35M— 9-34— C.  P.  Co. 

977.5  Z99B  v.l  Nos. 1-22 

307892 


